Key Facts
- •Wife obtained an interim charging order on 22 April 2024.
- •Husband failed to pay lump sum of £1.1 million due on 19 June 2023.
- •Wife sought a final charging order for unpaid lump sum, interest, costs, and arrears of spousal and child maintenance.
- •Husband acted in person and did not provide evidence opposing the final charging order.
- •The Roberts J Principal Order, which ordered payments, had unclear jurisdictional headings (Family Court vs. Family Division).
- •Wife's costs were initially capped at £110 under CPR 45's fixed costs regime.
- •The case involved three key legal issues: charging order applicability to sums payable to a child, accrual of interest on periodical payments, and the application of fixed costs regime.
Legal Principles
Whether a charging order can be made in respect of sums due to a third party (child).
Charging Orders Act 1979, Family Procedure Rules (FPR) 40.2, Family Court Practice 2024, Ward v Shakeshaft [1860] 1 Dr & Sm 269, In re N (A Child) [2009] EWHC 11 (Fam)
Whether interest accrues on unpaid periodical payments ordered in the Family Court/Division.
County Courts Act 1984, County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991, TW & TM (Minors) [2015] EWHC 3054 (Fam), Judgments Act 1838, Preston v Preston [1982] Fam 17, H v H [2005] EWHC (Fam) 1513, K v K [1977] Fam 39
Applicability of fixed costs regime (CPR 45) to final charging orders in family proceedings.
Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) 28.1, 28.2, 28.3, Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 45, Amber Construction Services Ltd v London Interspace HG Ltd [2007] EWHC 3042 (TCC), Chedington Events Ltd v Brake [2024] EWHC 384 (Ch), Law Commission Report No. 370
Outcomes
Final charging order granted, encompassing sums payable to the child.
Court held it had the power to grant a charging order despite the sums not being payable directly to the wife; it was deemed undesirable to require the child to pursue her father for payment.
Interest included on arrears of spousal and child maintenance.
The Roberts J Principal Order was deemed to have been made in the High Court, thus interest accrued under the Judgments Act 1838; the court declined to waive interest due to the husband's unjustified non-payment.
Wife awarded costs exceeding the fixed costs regime (£110).
The court exercised its discretion under FPR 28.1 to depart from the fixed costs, citing the husband's deliberate non-payment, history of obstructive behavior, and disregard for court orders. Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis.